Andrew Sullivan, the premier gay writer at The New York Times, was about to speak on “The Emasculation of Gay Politics.” He would take questions afterward “about any public issue,” the man who introduced him announced. The chuckling audience knew what that meant. They had come to this June 7 lecture not just because of Sullivan and his topic but because of the scandal that surrounds him.

Andrew Sullivan on Twitter. I think this montage of leftist pundits talking about bounties on American solders is pretty comprehensive. I know they're incapable of apologizing for errors, but will even one of them admit they were wrong? Andrew Michael Sullivan (born 10 August 1963) is a British-American author, editor, and blogger.Sullivan is a political commentator, a former editor of The New Republic, and the author or editor of six books. Andrew Sullivan rips NYT for calling Black Lives Matter riots 'isolated instances of property destruction' Sullivan pointed out that those 'isolated incidents' cost $1 to 2 billion in damage. Ben Smith has written a ritual denunciation of Andrew Sullivan in the New York Times, a column that contains an extraordinary bit of moral reasoning that a cynic might take as an exercise in self.

It all began in April, when Sullivan published a mocking account of his recent visit to San Francisco. “The streets were dotted with the usual hairy-backed homos,” he had snarked. “I saw one hirsute fellow dressed from head to toe in flamingo motifs.” Wandering into a gay bar, he recoiled: “Rarely have I seen such a scary crowd. Gay life in the rest of the U.S. is increasingly suburban, mainstream, assimilable. Here in the belly of the beast, Village People look-alikes predominate, and sex is still central to the culture. . . . I’d go nuts if I had to live here full time.”

This was classic Sullivan, right down to the contempt for what he calls the “libidinal pathology” of gay sexual culture. He considers gay marriage the only healthy alternative to “a life of meaningless promiscuity followed by eternal damnation.” He has hectored gay men for their obsession with “manic muscle factories,” and written at length about the need for “responsibility” in the age of AIDS. But thanks to the outing squad, we now know that this gay moralist is guilty of the same sins he disses others for committing.

Using the screen name RawMuscleGlutes, Sullivan posted on a site for bare backers (the heroic term for gay men who have sex without condoms). He was seeking partners for unsafe anal and oral intercourse. Sullivan revealed that he was HIV-positive and stated his preference for men who are “poz,” but he also indicated an interest in “bi scenes,” groups, parties, orgies, and “gang bangs.” This hardly fit the gay ideal Sullivan had created in his book Virtually Normal. In fact, RawMuscleGlutes is just the sort of “pathological” creature who raises Sullivan’s wrath. Hypocrisy has always been a rationale for outing, and it’s the justification for a group of gay journalists who teamed up with the tabs to expose him.

After word of Sullivan’s online escapades lit up a gay chat room last month, David Ehrenstein, a chronicler of the Hollywood closet, passed the dish around. A judicious item appeared in Michael Musto’s Village Voice column, and the story soon spread to Page Six of the New York Post. But the main mover was Michelangelo Signorile, the self-proclaimed inventor of outing. (See sidebar, “Sexual Squealing.”) In a lengthy exposé that ran in the local gay paper LGNY, he skewered Sullivan for engaging in “a classic ‘do as I say, not as I do’ argument.” Signorile’s timing couldn’t have been better. Every June some gay shock-horror grips the tabloids in time for Pride Week. This year’s scandal is Sullivan’s sex life.

For an openly gay writer, Sullivan has a very high profile, with columns in the Times and The New Republic (where he was once the editor). This gadfly gay conservative is no stranger to controversy, but he knows how to turn adversity to his advantage. At the Times lecture, he made the most of his latest brush with martyrdom. Despite the advisory against questions about his private life, Sullivan repeatedly alluded to the bare-backing furor in his remarks. It was like watching a pumped-up Saint Sebastian shoot the arrows while posing as their target.

After exhorting his audience to reject the “gay victim” myth, Sullivan cast himself as a victim of the left. “They are exactly the same as the far right,” he said. “They’ll try and get you by any means they can.” Never mind that his tormentors bear about the same relationship to the left as Geraldo Rivera does. Never mind the hardcore lavender lefties who have defended Sullivan’s right to sexual privacy. “In finding him a sinner,” writes The Nation‘s Richard Kim, “we don’t challenge the moralizing, normalizing values that Sullivan espouses. We just relocate ourselves, temporarily, on the other end of the finger.”

The Times lecture was an excellent occasion to sample Sullivan’s contradictions. He has always depended on the amnesia of his audience to cover his tracks. You might never know from his libertarian stance that he opposes abortion rights, or from his embrace of civil rights that he published excerpts from Charles Murray’s racist tract, The Bell Curve, on his watch at The New Republic. Tonight, Sullivan pleaded for gay solidarity (“We need each other’s support; we do not need to tear each other down”) and then complained that all the major gay organizations are run by women. He endorsed antidiscrimination laws, though he once declared that after gays win the right to marry and serve in the military, “we should throw a big party and close down the gay rights movement for good.” He rhapsodized about leather bars, though he once called joints that cater to such fetishes “abattoirs of AIDS.” And in the evening’s most bizarre moment, he urged his audience to reject hate-crime laws and arm themselves instead. To support his point, he cited Martin Luther King as an advocate of armed self-defense. This is the sort of reckless reasoning that has made Sullivan a star.

Reporters who visited his Web site at the height of the scandal were greeted with the following comment: If you “want a quote from me about the details of my sex life, feel free to use the following: ‘It is none of your business.’ ” Sullivan is right about that. His sex life is not the issue. The real scandal is why he is America’s most prominent gay writer.

Andrew Sullivan Column

Not long ago, it was impossible to imagine a gay columnist at America’s paper of record. The Times was legendary for its cold shoulder to gay activists, and its city room was considered hell on homosexual reporters. But the paper has changed dramatically. Gay men rank among its most influential staffers, and its coverage has been instrumental in the progress of gay rights. So it wasn’t entirely a surprise when a gay writer was given a prime slot at the Times magazine in 1998. But why this gay writer?

Imagine Ward Connerly, the black opponent of affirmative action—or a scathing antifeminist like Katie Roiphe—getting a column on race or women’s issues in the Times. Yet when it comes to gays, the more “politically incorrect” you are—and the more cutting toward queer culture—the farther you get in the liberal media.

Consider Camille Paglia, the attack dyke who graces the virtual pages of Salon. Not many people hold Matthew Shepard responsible for the torture he suffered, but Paglia has. Not many columnists refer to fragile men as “sissies,” but Paglia does. Not many people still think gay men are shaped by “some protracted childhood trauma [that] has overwhelmed nature’s pleasure-giving hormonal promptings,” but Paglia believes precisely that. Her pronouncement is the premise of Christian corrective therapy. Yet her throwback persona is precisely what makes her a draw. Like Sullivan, Paglia relies on gay-culture bashing to certify herself as an independent thinker. And like Sullivan, she thrives on the sexual backlash.

These gayocons stand outside the tradition of queer humanism that runs from Oscar Wilde and E.M. Forster to James Baldwin, Tennessee Williams, and Allen Ginsberg. The moral core of this lineage—its compassion, its critique of power, its respect for the sexual—still informs queer culture. It is gay liberation. But this sensibility is barely visible in the liberal media. (You have to read the radical press to find the real thing.) What has emerged instead reflects the uneasiness that remains about gay coverage, even as genteel acceptance has replaced active abhorrence. No matter how secure we may feel, the fact is that gay people live in a halfway house at best. We are out on parole.

The anxieties created by this uncertain status are felt by gays and straights alike. They are expressed in the Sullivan-Paglia persona. These writers have the moral flexibility, the self-satisfaction, and the style—charm laced with cruelty—that the times demand.

Why are attack queers so appealing to straight liberals? The fact is that launching an attack on gay “orthodoxies” is the surest route to celebrity for a homosexual thinker. Anyone who breaks with the movement is called courageous; anyone who mocks queer mores is seen as a true individual. In reality, writers like Paglia and Sullivan are reassuring rogues, affirming the biases that straights dare not admit they hold. Revulsion at gay sexuality remains imbedded in the liberal mind. Attack queers speak to that hidden loathing, expressing their audience’s forbidden feelings. They are as nasty as straight liberals wanna be.

None of this would be an issue if the liberal media presented a full range of gay and lesbian writing. Sullivan’s secret sex life wouldn’t be such a story if he weren’t the head house-homo. But the same system that empowers him also limits the number of queer voices in the mainstream media. Voltaire once said about experimenting with homosexuality, “Once, a philosopher; twice, a pervert.” So it is in the liberal press: Once a queer columnist has been hired, the quota is filled; to bring on a second or a third risks being too close for comfort.

On the road to freedom, every step is a transition. The time may come when it isn’t necessary for openly gay writers to devour their own in order to find a place in the sun. But before that can occur, liberals will have to examine the reasons why they take such delight in attack queers. As things stand, it’s easier for editors to close ranks around the designated deviant than to consider the reasons for his rise. And easier for activists to attack the king of the mountain than to ask why the slope is so steep.

Research: Ben Silverbush

Andrew Sullivan Twitter

The term Twitter Revolution refers to different revolutions and protests, most of which featured the use of the social networking site Twitter by protestors and demonstrators in order to communicate:

• 2009 Moldova civil unrest, claiming that the elections, which saw the governing Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM) win a majority of seats, were fraudulent
• 2009–2010 Iranian election protests, also known as Green Revolution and Facebook Revolution, following the 2009 Iranian presidential election
• 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution, also known as Jasmine Revolution and Wikileaks Revolution, in which the regime of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was ended after 23 years
• Egyptian Revolution of 2011, in which the regime of Hosni Mubarak was ended after 30 years
• Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine, beginning in November 2013.
• 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, on January 6, 2021, rioters supporting United States PresidentDonald Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Characteristics[edit]

In the 'Twitter revolution', the relationship between the new media and social movement has three distinct characteristics: 1) The Twitter streams represent the interaction mechanism of ecological network 2) The Twitter streams embedding or be embedded into different types of control process; 3) The Twitter streams reflect the change of social movement ecology.^[1]

Positive influence[edit]

According to the study of the Egyptian revolution, American Scholar Linz put forward that there are four ways affect collective action:

1. Make the disgruntled citizens more coordinated take some public action;
2. through the information cascade (information cascades) to improve the predictive chance of success
3. accelerate the cost of the repression of the union movement.
4. Through information dissemination increase the other regional and global public attention.^[2]

Negative influence[edit]

Twitter revolutions can also have a negative influence on the social movement. Malcolm Gladwell defined the SNS activity as weak ties and low level organization structure, and put forward that the social relations constructed through the Internet is very difficult to translate into collective action.^[3] Additionally, It is a challenge of the social practice of using social media for political information construction and dissemination of democratic consultation; therefore, political culture, and social participation of ideological discourse problems created by the social media becomes very important.^[4]Twitter analysis tools is played an important role in getting word about the events in Iran out to the wider world. Together with YouTube, it helped focus the world's attention on the Iranian people's fight for democracy^{[citation needed]} and human rights^{[citation needed]}. New media over the last year created and sustained unprecedented international moral solidarity with the Iranian struggle—a struggle that was being waged many years before Twitter was ever conceived.^[5] Thirdly, as the restrictions of the technical and social capital, minority voices are easy to be ignored, and thus, the discourse right of ordinary audience was again put on the agenda.^[6]

Case studies[edit]

In Iran[edit]

'Twitter revolution' is distinguished from other forms of activism because of the means by which the activists communicate and aggregate through Twitter. It is an example of how social media facilitates communication among people globally in political revolutions. It challenges the traditional relationship between political authorities and popular, allowing the powerless to 'collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns'.^[3]

During the 2009–2010 Iranian election protests, Twitter and other similar websites succeeded in spreading the information and let people know around the world what was going on in Iran, while the mainstream, western media such as CNN failed to cover the news. According to Evgeny Morozov, a scholar at Stanford and a blogger for Foreign Policy magazine, the widespread belief that Twitter was the major platform of Iranian youth to plan mass scale protests online lacks sufficient supporting evidence, because in this way the authorities would be able to monitor and suppress the movement. Instead, Twitter is mainly 'used to publicize protests that are already going on—and bring the world's attention to the acts of violence committed by the regime'.^[7]

Here, Twitter had played a role beyond its intended function as social media where people get connected to their acquaintances and friends online. 'Without Twitter the people of Iran would not have felt empowered and confident to stand up for freedom and democracy', Mark Pfeifle, a former national-security adviser wrote. The contribution of Twitter in disseminating news from Green Revolution is recognized by Obama administration. On June 15 afternoon, the State Department official Jared Cohen sent Twitter an email, requesting it to 'delay scheduled maintenance of its global network, which would have cut off service while Iranians were using Twitter to swap information and inform the outside world about the mushrooming protests around Tehran'.^[8]

The Iranian government also chose to block websites Facebook and Twitter roughly a month prior the June 12 presidential elections.^[9]

However, some scholars also doubt the significance of Twitter's role in the political upheaval.^[10][11][12] Golnaz Esfandiari wrote in Foreign Policy magazine that the majority of Twitter posts concerning demonstrations were products of Western users: 'It's time to get Twitter's role in the events in the Iran right. Simply put: there was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran.' She claims that bloggers like Andrew Sullivan, who was famous for his tweets about the Tehran revolution, misunderstood the situation. This journalist argues that activists who were opposed to the main political power tended to use Internet sources like text messages, email, and blog posts for communication in organizing of protest actions. Meanwhile, 'good old-fashioned word of mouth' was the most influential medium for coordinating opposition, she writes. Esfandiari also added that social media tools like Facebook and Twitter were not ideal for rapid communication among protestors.^[13] 'Western journalists who couldn't reach—or didn't bother reaching?—people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English-language tweets post with tag #iranelection', she wrote. 'Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi.'^[14] So from the Western point of view, the voices of native Iranians writing tweets in Persian about the situation in their country were nearly absent. Evgeny Morozov stresses the importance of event coverage by bilingual Iranian bloggers. In his opinion only the people who were deeply involved in the process could comprehensibly describe the current situation—Western commentators didn't clearly understand the real situation because of language barriers, and only a small percentage of curious and demanding commentators tried to use translators to get to the root of the problem.^[15]

David Rothkopf proposes that the idea of 'Twitter revolution' is an overstatement. Even though it raised political awareness and increase participation through retweeting and reposting, there is no involvement of sacrifice, courage, physical confrontation and risk that real revolutions and real changes require.^[16]

Iranian activist Vahid Online questions the 'Twitter revolution' idea, stating that access to Facebook and Twitter in Iran is not enough to make it happen.^[17][18]

In Egypt[edit]

During the Egypt Revolution of 2011, the oppositional movement against the ruling of Mubarak was active on various platforms of social media. For example, 'the hashtag #Jan25th was used to mobilize protesters on Twitter' to join the demonstration on Jan 25th on Tahrir Square. Along with other methods such as text messages, flyers and word-of-mouth, it drew a crowd of 80,000 to the street of Cairo on that day. Similar to its Iranian correspondent, Egypt government shut down access to Twitter in the afternoon on the day of gathering.^[19] The connection was not restored until February 2.^[20]

Moreover, Twitter was applied to communicate with the audience outside Egypt to 'globalized the movement and win international support to protect and sustain the uprising'. The worldwide audience was also able to have constant update with the situation in Egypt besides simply listening to the State's point of view.^[4] As a consequence, the revolution succeeded in the resignation of Mubarak on February 11, ending the dictatorship that lasted for over three decades. An article in the magazine Wired states that social media did not cause the Egypt revolution. Rather, Twitter and Facebook were more like 'a spark and an accelerant', 'catalyzing pro-democracy movements'. They have had the most potent impact in 'what has shocked most observers of the current Egyptian scene: the sheer speed with which the regime fell – 18 days'.^[21]

In Egypt, Twitter was furthermore used to launch movements and volunteer groups hoping to have a positive effect on the community during a volatile time. The most notable initiatives launched on Twitter are Tahrir Supplies, Tahrir Doctors and Tahrir Bodyguard. Tahir Supplies and Tahrir Doctors aimed to save lives through collecting supplies, disseminating emergency alerts and were both effective in developing a logistics network to handle medical emergencies in Tahrir Square. Tahrir Bodyguard was launched by Soraya Bahgat on Twitter to combat the mob sexual assaults in Tahrir Square. Soraya Bahgat founded the movement after being horrified by the stories of ongoing mob sexual assaults in Tahrir Square as a movement of uniformed volunteers taking a stand against these assaults. Inspired by Twitter's effectiveness as a launching pad for initiatives such as Tahrir Supplies and Tahrir Doctors, she immediately took to Twitter after getting the idea and created the account that launched the movement. 'Unwilling to see more of these assaults taking place, she started a Twitter account asking for volunteers to join and help make Tahrir a safer place for women', a member of the movement explained in an interview.

In Ukraine (Euromaidan)[edit]

After president Viktor Yanukovich rejected the signing of the EU–Ukraine agreement on November 21, 2013, a mass protest took place on the 'European square' in Kiev.^[22] The event was massively spread through Twitter with the hashtags #euromaidan, #євромайдан and #евромайдан.^[23] The political situation in Ukraine increased the Twitter subscribers from 6,000 new accounts in November 2013 to 55,000 in January 2014. The average amount of daily tweets grew from 90,000 in 2012 to 130,000 during the protests. It reached a peak on 20 February 2014, when dozens of protesters were killed. The same day, 240,000 tweets were written.^[24] Although many of the tweets were written in English, according to geotags analysis, 69% of them were tweeted from Ukraine. This indicates that those tweets were posted mostly by Ukrainians themselves.^[25] On the 27th of January, 2014 a 'Twitterstorm' was launched in order to attract global attention to the protest itself and to initiate sanctions towards the then president Viktor Yanukovich. Ukrainian Twitterati addressed tweets with the hashtag #digitalmaidan to foreign media, politicians and international organizations. The hashtag then topped worldwide Twitter trends.^[26] Ukrainians might have been influenced to use Twitter under the Euromaidan because of the impact Twitter had for other protests.^[25]

In Tunisia[edit]

The Tunisian Revolution was sparked in December 2010 due to a lack of political freedoms and poor living conditions. 'The protest was driven by the suicide of Mohamed Bouazizi, an unemployed street vendor whose informal vegetable stall was shuttered by the police.'^[27] Because of these conditions many of the Tunisian people took to social media sites, such as Twitter, to spread their messages about the revolution. One of the messages spread through Twitter included a popular hashtag #sidibouzid, which was important in highlighting the Tunisian Revolution through a hashtag.^[28]

In a survey conducted about social media use in the Tunisian revolution, 'many of the respondents named Twitter, Facebook, Skype, and cell phones as social media platforms they were using. Prior to the revolution most of the respondents stated that they were using social media to exchange information, stay in contact with family, and receive uncensored news. During the revolution, the respondents expressed an increased use of social media.'^[27]

Andrew Sullivan Twitter Page

Furthermore, the Tunisian people spread videos and photos of violence taking place in the country at the time. This allowed for people outside of Tunisia to understand what was taking place in Tunisia during the revolution. This led to increased coverage of the events from outside the country, which helped spread awareness and ultimately help the people of Tunisia see their former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

In America[edit]

Andrew Sullivan Twitter

In September 2010, many investors from Twitter Mob, were involved with Angelgate.

References[edit]

1. ^Segerberg, Alexandra, and W. Lance Bennett. “Social Media and the Organization of Collective Action: Using Twitter to Explore the Ecologies of Two Climate Change Protests.” The Communication Review 14, no. 3 (July 1, 2011): 197–215, https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597250.
2. ^Lynch, Marc. After Egypt: The limits and promise of online challenges to the authoritarian Arab state. Perspectives on Politics.
3. ^ ^abGladwell, Malcolm (Oct 4, 2010). 'Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted'. The New York Times. Retrieved May 18, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
4. ^ ^abLim, Merlyna. Clicks, Cabs, and Coffee Houses: Social Media and Oppositional Movements in Egypt, 2004-2011. Journal of Communication.
5. ^Esfandiari, Golnaz (Jun 7, 2010). 'The Twitter Devolution'. Foreign Policy. Retrieved May 18, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
6. ^Valenzuela, Sebastian, Arturo Arriagada & Andres Scherman (2012). The Social Media Basis of Youth Protest Behavior: The Case of Chile. Journal of Communication.
7. ^Morozov, Evgeny (Jun 17, 2009). 'Iran Election: A Twitter Revolution?'. The Washington Post. Retrieved May 22, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
8. ^Landler, Mark; Stelter, Brian (Jun 16, 2009). 'Washington Taps Into a Potent New Force in Diplomacy'. The New York Times. Retrieved Jun 10, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
9. ^Sheikholeslamiwork, Ali (May 23, 2009). 'Iran Blocks Facebook, Twitter Sites Before Elections (Update1)'. Bloomberg. Archived from the original on July 21, 2012. Retrieved Jun 10, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link) CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
10. ^Honari, Ali (2015). 'Online Social Research in Iran: A Need to Offer a Bigger Picture'. CyberOrient: Online Journal of the Virtual Middle East. 9 (2).
11. ^Esfandyari, Golnaz (7 June 2010). 'The Twitter devolution'. Foreign Policy.
12. ^Rahimi, Babak (2011). 'The agonistic social media: Cyberspace in the formation of dissent and consolidation of state power in postelection Iran'. The Communication Review. 14 (3): 158–178. doi:10.1080/10714421.2011.597240.
13. ^Keller, Jared (June 18, 2010). 'Evaluating Iran's Twitter Revolution'. The Atlantic. Retrieved Nov 24, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
14. ^Gladwell, Malcolm (Oct 4, 2010). 'Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted'. The New Yorker. Retrieved Nov 24, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
15. ^Morozov, Evgeny (Jun 17, 2009). 'Iran Election: A Twitter Revolution?'. The Washington Post. Retrieved Nov 25, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
16. ^Rothkopf, David (Jun 17, 2009). 'There is no such thing as virtual revolution...'Foreign Policy Magazine. Retrieved May 22, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
17. ^Vahid Online (February 2, 2010), Vahid Online responds to Douglas Rushkoff, PBS, retrieved October 13, 2015CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
18. ^Ippolita (2015), Rasch, Miriam (ed.), The Facebook Aquarium: The Resistible Rise of Anarcho-Capitalism(PDF), Theory on Demand, #15, translated by Riemens, Patrice; Landman, Cecile (Revised and updated ed.), Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures, p. 84, ISBN978-94-92302-00-7
19. ^Murphy, Dan (January 25, 2011). 'Inspired by Tunisia, Egypt's protests appear unprecedented'. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved June 10, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
20. ^'Egypt internet comes back online'. BBC News. 2 February 2011. Retrieved June 10, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
21. ^Gustin, Sam (Feb 11, 2011). 'Social Media Sparked, Accelerated Egypt's Revolutionary Fire'. Wired Magazine. Retrieved June 10, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
22. ^Danilova, Maria (Nov 22, 2013). 'Ukraine's PM booed after snubbing EU, turning to Moscow'. Retrieved November 25, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
23. ^Talaga, Tanya (Feb 5, 2014). 'How social media is fuelling Ukraine's protests'. Retrieved November 25, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
24. ^Lokot, Tetyana (September 1, 2014). 'Russian Social Networks Dominate in Ukraine Despite Information War'. Retrieved November 25, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
25. ^ ^abBarberá, Pablo; Metzger, Megan (December 4, 2013). 'How Ukrainian protestors are using Twitter and Facebook'. Retrieved November 25, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
26. ^Lyushnevskaya, Yana (November 21, 2014). 'Social media shape Ukraine political debate'. Retrieved November 25, 2014.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
27. ^ ^abEsseghaier, Mariam (March 2013). ''Tweeting Out a Tyrant:' Social Media and the Tunisian Revolution'. Retrieved Jun 11, 2015.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
28. ^Lotan, Gilad; et al. (2011). 'The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions'. The International Journal of Communications 5, 1375-1405. Retrieved May 20, 2015.CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)

Andrew Sullivan Weekly Dish